Rasmussen Poll Opinion II

Chris Bowers @ MyDD.com

My repeated assertions that Santorum had basically no chance in this race have resulted in criticisms, both public and private, from a wide variety of Pennsylvania Democrats. Some warn of overconfidence, some warn that progressives will stay home, some warn that Santorum has loads of money, some warn that the Pennsylvania Republican base remains strong, and on and on and on. However, all of those warning and tortured attempts to try and make this race look competitive aside, I think it is time for everyone who is watching this race to look at the numbers and appreciate what is actually happening here. We now have a Republican polling firm showing the race at 56-33in favor of Casey. If an incumbent was leading any campaign 56-33, s/he would be considered safe by every election analyst in the nation. However, that isn't even how bad things are for Santorum. For a challenger to be leading 56-33 is unprecedented. Remember that undecideds tend to break overwhelmingly for the challenger. I have never seen anything like this. Not only is this the best poll for a challenger I have ever seen, nothing else I have ever seen is even remotely close to this. Santorum has a 90% name ID statewide, and only 33% of the state wants to vote for him.

He says it's bad for the PA GOP in general.

Immigration, Again

Tony Phyrillas is stinkin' mad about the Senate Immigration bill.

The Senate's betrayal of America with the amnesty bill is nothing short of treason. Every Senator who voted for the bill must be held accountable. (Only four Democrats in the Senate opposed the bill). One-third of the Senate is up for re-election this year. Find out how your senator voted and fire him or her Nov. 7.

In Pennsylvania, Specter is protected until 2010 when he will most likely retire. The other senator, Rick Santorum, facing a tough re-election fight against the son of former Gov. Bob Casey, voted against the Senate bill even though Santorum is running behind the polls and is the No. 1 target of the far left during this election cycle. Santorum's courageous vote to oppose this travesty is reason enough to re-elect him.

Treason is a little much. But the bill is terrible.

Middle East Forum

Natan Sharansky and Rick Santorum

on

Religious Freedom, Democracy, and the Middle East

Moderated by Daniel Pipes

Monday, June 19, 2006

Registration: 6:00 p.m.
Program: 6:30 p.m. – 7:45 p.m.

Centennial Auditorium, The Haverford School
450 Lancaster Ave, Haverford, Pennsylvania

To make reservations (it's free) email Prosser@Meforum.org

This sounds excellent. I will definately be attending. For those of you don't know, a line from Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy inspired the name of my other blog, Threesources.com. Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Senator Santorum needs no introduction!

Home Imbroglio

From my point of view, the Penn Hills home story has died down, but Penn Patriot says it's still going.

[WTAE's Bob] Mayo decided to interview former U.S. Representative and Santorum casualty, Doug Walgren. May began his story by describing how Santorum "agressively attacked" Walgren in their U.S. House race by bringing up the issue of Walgren's residency. But, when asked about it at the time Santorum simply stated the following according to Mayo. "I've talked to his neighbors. His parents live there. He does not live there." Is this statement really an aggressive attack Mayo?

What goes around comes around was the entire theme of Mayo's story. Walgren's response to questions about Santorum's current residency issues sums up the pointlessness of Mayo's story. Walgren said during the interview, "He finds himself sort of in the same situation that he put me in at that time."

You got to love media bias. I can just see Mayo and Walgren chuckling after the interview. Maybe they even lit a stogie and had some tea.

Read the rest...

Pro Life Positioning

Being Pro-Life helps the GOP.

Despite its benefit for the Republican Party, Mehlman also said opposing the abortion is the right thing to do and the GOP should continue to keep a plank in its platform to a pro-life amendment to the Constitution "because it is morally right."

"Mehlman's analysis can explain the self-contradictory behavior Democrats often exhibit on abortion," Jeffrey writes of the Democrat Party, which favors unlimited legalized abortion.

"Democrats find themselves caught between the demands of commonsense and good morality on the one hand and a core constituency adamant about preserving legalized abortion on the other," Jeffrey explains. "They forsake commonsense and morality to appease their base."

For their part, Democratic officials have recognized the need to appeal to pro-life voters and abortion advocates have been up in arms at their recruiting Senate candidate Bob Casey in Pennsylvania to challenge pro-life Sen. Rick Santorum. Casey opposes abortion.

But Casey's caucus wouldn't oppose abortion.

Environmental Speeches

Press Release

Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Rick Santorum and his Democratic challenger State Treasurer Bob Casey, Jr. will be keynote speakers at the 36th annual dinner of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council in Philadelphia on June 6.

More details at link.

Rasmussen Poll Opinion I

Greg Pollowitz @ NRO

I think something is wrong here. The same poll has Santorum's favorability at 42%. It seems odd that Santorum's favorability rating is higher than those willing to vote for him.

Rasmussen has some other odd results of late. On May 18, he released poll data from Ohio that had Strickland up 16 against Ken Blackwell and had Brown leading DeWine.
Yet, during roughly the same time, The Univ. of Cincinnati poll had entirely different results. They have Strickland up by only 6 and DeWine up by 10.

FreePa

This is terrible news for Santorum, as it shows that he is still failing to bring his base back to where he needs them. In fact, the recent primary victories may have emboldened conservatives, sending a message that they don't have to accept politics-as-usual, which is what many view a vote for Santorum as.

The Big Fat Slob is counting eggs.

it gets worse for the Senator and better for the perennial Pennsylvania candidate, Bobby Casey Junior -- Senator Santorum's favorable rating is down to 42% and nearly half of his constituents view him unfavorably -- 47%. Nearly 6/10 Pennsylvanians have a favorable view of the challenger -- 59%.

Hard to see how things can get much better for Santorum -- according to Rasmussen, Pennsylvania voters -- by a wide margin -- prefer the Democrats over the Republicans on issues like the economy, energy policy, and Iraq.

Casey now has the race to lose and Santorum, well his anti-immigration policy makes more sense. Since he'll be looking for work soon, he needs to keep the competition out.

Casey vs Lieberman

TPMCafe

Lieberman represents the left flank of the moderates who are ready to bolt from George Bush. More important to progressive aspirations are the moderate 6 of the North east – Specter, Collins, Snowe, Chaffee, DeWine and Voinavich. Voinavich and Specter survived challenges in 2004 – protected by the wave of stasis in the country – DeWine and Chaffee face challenges this year, along with the probable defeat of Santorum by Conservative Democrat Bob Casey.

And it is in Casey that we see the difference between the two strategies and their effects. Casey, a dynasty politician had no effective opposition in the primary, even though he is against key issues that the base supports – possible challengers were cleared out. It is not that the DSCC needed to nominate a conservative to win the race in Pennsylvania – it is that it is cheaper to do so, and that is seen by the swing strategy moderates as freeing up resources for other races. In the swing moderate strategy, getting two Senators who will often vote against the party, is much better than getting one that will always vote with the party. Conservative Democrats, breed other conservative Democrats.

Lieberman, who is to the left of Casey, has a very serious challenge in Ned Lamont – it isn't that bloggers and internetizens were not willing to back a challenge to Casey in Pennsylvania, it is that local passions in Pennsylvania were not aroused by stopping Casey, where as the anger at Lieberman's neglecting of the party stalwarts in Connecticut was the powder on which ideological sparks fell.

Rasmussen: Casey 56% - Santorum 33%

A new Rasmussen Poll is finally out, and it shows Casey opening up his lead to 23 points (was 51% to 38%) since the last Rasmussen a month ago.

This is the first poll released since May 16th's primary election.

Last month, Santorum trailed by thirteen percentage points. The incumbent began 2006 down by 20 points and closed to within single digits by March. That was before the Primary Election solidified Casey's position as the Democratic nominee.

Santorum continues to flounder with his base, attracting support from only 67% of GOP voters. Casey now attracts 87% of Democrats, a ten-point gain since our April 20 poll.

The Senate race has been enlivened of late by controversy over Santorum's official residence, with the incumbent accusing the Casey campaign of spying.
Senator Santorum is viewed favorably by 42% of likely voters, unfavorably by 47%. About a quarter, 26%, view Santorum Very Unfavorably.

It's a hell of a jump. Let's see who calls it a trend, and who calls it an outlier.

More Mark Harris

SantorumBlogger and Republican nominee for State House Mark Harris has some big goals.

When Mark Harris was born, John Perzel was wrapping up his third term in the state House.

But Harris -- a self-styled Reaganite who upset a longtime Republican House incumbent this month -- showed no deference when asked about the future of the powerful speaker of the House.

"John Perzel has to go," Harris, 21, barely of legal age to serve in Harrisburg, told a TV station in Pittsburgh the day after his primary win. "He is out of touch with the rest of the Republican Party. I think he is out of touch with the rest of the state of Pennsylvania."

Known for his ironfisted control of his GOP caucus, Perzel is increasingly coming under attack from conservatives within his own party who wouldn't have thought of publicly criticizing him at this time last year.

They point to a growing belief in his caucus that he's too closely aligned with Gov. Ed Rendell, as well as the primary in which 11 incumbent GOP members fell earlier this month.

Was Rick Right?

DB Light says the Senator was right.

Don't say he didn't warn us. Reuters reports:

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals.

A Little More On Immigration

Far from over...

The bill passed 62-36, with the major opposition coming from the Republican majority. But the bill's fate as it moves to a joint conference committee of the Senate and House is not good. Much opposition exists among conservative "base" Republican voters, who form the foundation of support for GOP politicians at the local level, especially in the U.S. heartland.

That attitude was expressed in the Senate by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who is facing a tough re-election battle this year against Democrat Bob Casey Jr., son of the late Bob Casey Sr., a popular former governor. "The problem with this bill is that it is an amnesty bill, or a legalization bill, that I think is just fundamentally unfair to millions of people waiting around the world trying to get into this country legally," Sen. Santorum said, as quoted by news services.

With GOP House members worried about losing control of the House this November to resurgent Democrats, it's difficult to believe that a compromise bill will emerge before the election. There are deep differences between the Senate's comprehensive bill and the enforcement-only bill passed by the House in December. It looks to us like it's going to take at least one election cycle, with members of Congress from both houses going home to talk with voters, to get straight what the American people, through their elected senators and representatives, want done on immigration.

Refugee Equity

Senator Santorum is co-sponsoring a bill to ensure to some equity when discussing Middle Eastern refugees.

Four US Senators and four Congressmen, representing both Democrats and Republicans, have introduced landmark resolutions on Middle East refugees in the United States Senate and in the House of Representatives.

The resolutions urge President George Bush to ensure that in all international forums, when the issue of "Middle East refugees" is discussed, representatives of the United States should ensure "that any explicit reference to Palestinian refugees is matched by a similar explicit reference to Jewish and other refugees, as a matter of law and equity."

The Senate Map

The Wall Street Journal editorial staff discussed the Senate races this weekend on their show on Fox.

Here's a transcript...

Gigot: Let's talk about the Senate map. We have a map that shows that I think there are six or seven Republican seats that are in jeopardy: Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Montana in particular; Ohio and Missouri a little bit less so; Tennessee and Virginia also at least in play. James, is there a real danger there that the Republicans could leave the five seats that they would have to lose to lose the majority?

Taranto: Well, they'd have to lose six seats to go to 51-49 in favor of the Democrats. It could happen. It's very unlikely. The Democrats would have to beat at least five incumbent Republicans, and that assuming they pick up the open seat in Tennessee.

I think Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania will have a hard time winning even if the Republicans' fortunes improve simply because he is a very conservative Republican in a Democrat-leaning state. But I think all of the others, Republicans, have a reasonable shot of holding on to, and the likelihood that they'll lose them all is quite low.

Gigot: John, how do you see it? I mean, Ohio, for example, doesn't look good because of all the corruption that Republicans who run the state have suffered. That looks like a tough place for Republicans this year.

Fund: True, but Sen. DeWine now has a 10-point lead. Again, incumbency may be kicking into play. The Democrats have done something very smart. In key states they are running much more moderate candidates than they used to. Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, who is pro-life, against Rick Santorum; Tennessee--Harold Ford, a Democrat who votes for Republican tax cuts.

Honoring Our Heroes

From Rick Santorum.com

Sometimes we tend to forget how fortunate we are to live in this country, free Americans living in a powerfully free society. And we can forget that for our freedom and the freedom of every American that follows in our footsteps, we can thank the brave men and women who fought, and those who died, for our country.

We simply cannot thank our veterans and their families enough for what they have sacrificed for us -- the debt that we owe them is far too great. But every year at the end of May, our nation pauses to collectively acknowledge their contributions, to express our gratitude, and to remember those that were lost. We call it Memorial Day, and this day of remembrance was born right here in Pennsylvania.

This holiday was first celebrated during the Civil War as a day for Americans to pay homage to the Union Soldiers who perished in the long struggle to abolish slavery and preserve our nation. In 1864, a few residents of Boalsburg, Pennsylvania, a small town in Centre County, journeyed to the local cemetery to pay respect to their friends and family members who were lost in the war. When they returned to repeat their tribute the following year, much of the town joined them, a parade of citizens honoring their fallen friends. Thus, we have Memorial Day.

While the nature of Memorial Day has changed in the many years since then, its significance has not diminished. We no longer just remember the Civil War, but observe the lives and sacrifices of all who passed away in defense of America and her principles. We celebrate the freedoms we enjoy and recognize the hard truth that there is a cost to those freedoms, a cost that is borne by those brave souls who have taken up arms to protect us. And we take this chance, as a nation, to say thank you to those who served, both those who have passed on and those who are still with us.

This Memorial Day, we have a new generation of veterans returning home and joining the millions from past conflicts. As Americans, we have the incredible good fortune to stand on the shoulders of our armed forces. Our nation has long leaned on the strength and character of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, and we do so today. They keep us safe. They make us proud. And this weekend, we can let them know just how very much that means to us.

It's unfortunate that in today's America we generally celebrate Memorial Day with half-priced mattresses and 0% APR on cars.

Thank you to all our soldiers past and present for their sacrifices to protect our freedoms.

Third Parties for Senate

The Constitution Party is going to field a candidate for Senate this year, former GOP State Committeeman Carl Edwards.

Mr Edwards pledges to

• To preserve, protect, and defend the Right to Life from conception until natural death.


• To preserve, protect and defend the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.


• To preserve, protect and defend the Right to Freedom of Education for Children.


• To preserve, protect and defend the Right to Constitutional Taxation.

The Libertarian Party is going with Tom Martin.

Tom Martin's big issue is ballot access (more on that in a bit), and he has a page full of his positions on the issues.

The Green Party has selected Carl Romanelli.

Unlike his opponents, Romanelli favors universal health care, immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, reproductive freedom, and the right to same-sex marriage. Romanelli considers himself "the only candidate with a different platform" and the one alternative to two opponents with almost identical platforms.

Messrs Edwards, Martin and Romanelli, like Kate Michelman (if she ran), would need 67,070 signatures on a petition by August 1st to get on the ballot statewide. The 67,000 signatures represents 2% of Bob Casey's 2004 victory over Jean Craige Pepper for Treasurer.

That's a lot of signatures, especially compared to the 2000 signature bar for the Republicans and Democrats. It's the result of one of the largest turnouts in history. but if you can't even get 2% of the electorate to sign for you, how can you credibly say you can win? You are running to win, right?

Penn Hills: Who Benefits?

Hardstarboard writes that the Santorum home imbrolgio makes him feel better about the tightening of the race.

This clinches the Casey campaign's guilt:


They also accused the Santorum campaign of trying to shift attention from the fact that Santorum primarily lives with his family in Virginia.

How dare Santorum distract public attention from our irrelevant smear to the dirty tricks we had to pull to perpetrate it! What NERVE!

I'm feeling better about this race all the time. And why not, given that even the gloomiest Pachyderms are now saying that the worst the GOP will do on the Senate side is break even?

It's not what they deserve. But it does open up the opportunity for ideological recovery if they can muster the humility to recognize it.

It's pretty funny.

Read the Whole Thing

Hand-wringing and prognostication

We are now in the traditional summer news slump before an election, and you know what that means: inane and incessant commentary about poll numbers, historical trends, and the magic crystal ball that everyone seems to have which will tell them who will win in November.

It is only Memorial Day, and I am already tired of it.

That aside, I wanted to relate something I heard on Election Night at Santorum's headquarters. Rick Santorum is the perpetual underdog no matter who he is running against. His poll numbers are always in the toilet. Always. It happened in 1990, 1992, 1994, 2000, and again in 2006. Remember when the Democrats redistricted Santorum's House district in 1992 and he "couldn't" win the seat again since it contained twice as many Democrats as Republicans? Of course not. He won with better than 60% of the vote, though. And remember in 2000 when his approval ratings were at 31%? No, of course not. He won against a pro-life Democrat that year, too.

This does not mean that Santorum's a shoe-in, but it does mean that an election featuring Rick Santorum is not one where you can rely on registration numbers and historic trends. This campaign will hinge on real issues and real decisions--things like taxes and immigration and NOT where someone's legal address is. On those issues, I can say as a conservative that I have been very happy with my Senator's performance and that I will remember that in the voting booth. Sooner or later I think others will come around.

The talking heads have consistently gotten Pennsylvania politics wrong; there are about 17 soon-to-be ex-legislators who can attest to that. I suppose this Senate election is no different.

But think--only five more months to go.

Politics As Usual

It's not just Republicans who are mad at Republican politicians. Democrats are mad at Democrat politicians too.

Apparently Democrats believe they can win in 2006 by standing aside and letting the GOP self-destruct and then politely slipping into their committee chairs when no one's looking. Do you think Karl Rove has any intention of making it this easy? Think again. And in the meantime, voters like me are choking on disgust, waiting in vain for the punchline when we read about the latest failure of the Democrats to stand for anything.

Dear Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Rahm Emanuel, et. al.: You are dangerously close to me spending November 7 on my couch with a pint of Chunky Monkey and the sixth season of The West Wing. I'm not going to vote for people who don't seem to give a damn about anything. This isn't your last warning -- but it's close.

Senator Schumer (along with Governor Rendell) is behind the selection of Bob Casey to run for Senate.

(tip to Greg Pollowitz)

Vets for Santorum

Patriot-News letter to the editor.

Sen. Rick Santorum has not only voted several times to increase our benefits, but he continues to rally support at home for the troops still fighting overseas.

During my time in the service I was greatly comforted by the support the senator had for us, and am now honored by his continued support as a veteran.

In related news, Veterans for Santorum launched this week.

More on Immigration

Centrist At Heart

Our gutless US Senate is no better than the one we have in Harrisburg. It, like the Pennsylvania Senate, is loaded with Pseudo-Republicans who yesterday caved in complicitly and surrendered important pieces of United States sovereignty, on your behalf, of course.

Senator Rick Santorum is no Pseudo-Republican. He stood his ground and voted against the reprehensible piece of legislation (S. 2611) the Senate passed yesterday.

Thank you Senator, for showing us that you indeed are constant and loyal to your principles. Thank you for standing in the Senate of the United States as a true Patriot!

S. 2611 essentially voids the President’s guest worker program and effectively offers amnesty to long-term illegal immigrants in this country now.

Even worse, it forces the United States to consult with Mexico before erecting walls along our border!

Of course we need to consult with them, building a wall is the kind of job no American wants to do!

The Washington Times lists some of the provisions and calls it reckless...

On Thursday, by a vote of 62-36, the Senate passed a reckless immigration bill which, among other things, grants amnesty to the estimated 11 million illegal aliens already in the country; paves the way for a projected 66 million additional immigrants by 2026; creates a temporary-worker program which Sen. Jim DeMint rightly called "neither temporary nor work-based"; allows illegals to enjoy Social Security and tax-credit benefits for illegal labor; lacks the tougher border controls proposed by Sen. Johnny Isakson; cuts by nearly half the 700-mile barrier the House proposed for the southern border; guts what little immigration-enforcement powers local police might wield; increases long-term federal spending by an estimated $30 billion or more; and might even require consultation with Mexico to construct barriers along the border. If this isn't immigration abdication, we don't know what is.

The reaction among sensible immigration observers was rightful distress. "The Senate isn't serious about enforcing the nation's immigration laws," wrote National Review's editorialists. The Hoover Institution's Thomas Sowell wrote that it "will give the illegals more rights than the average American citizen." The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector called the Senate's Social Security angle "remarkably foolish" and would "make the finance books of government worse." Sen. Rick Santorum said the bill is well nigh "the worst possible way to reform our immigration system."

At Odds on Immigration

Post-Gazette...

Mr. Santorum favors an approach closer to the enforcement-oriented version the House passed in December, one that lawmakers are expected to have difficulty reconciling with the Senate bill's more sweeping changes. Mr. Santorum, the Senate's third-ranking Republican, voted with a majority of his GOP colleagues in opposition, parting ways with other powerful Republicans such as President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a key architects of the Senate's version.

Mr. Santorum denounced the measure as "a broad amnesty program for most illegal aliens," a characterization Mr. Casey and Senate proponents disputed.

Mr. Casey's support for the bill was his most specific stand on immigration legislation to date. After its passage, he issued this statement: "The immigration bill is not perfect, but it is a consensus bill that drew the support of Republicans and Democrats. ... If I were in the Senate, I would have voted for [it] because it is long past time to take action, and this bill contains important reforms."

...

While Mr. Santorum broke with a White House that favors key elements of the Senate bill, Mr. Casey lumped them together in a parting shot that contended, "The fact that we're only now addressing border security in an election year is a sign of their failure and proof that we need a new direction in Washington."

Quite honestly, I'm wondering if Treasurer Casey is recalculating his 98% number.

Immigration Commentary

Laura's Miscellaneous Musings...

Senator Rick Santorum appeared on Sean Hannity's radio show yesterday. Santorum is facing perhaps the toughest re-election fight of any senator, and, reading between the lines, it seemed clear he felt that voting for the immigration plan would damage his re-election chances. Santorum seemed to advocate what might be termed a "third way," closer to the House plan: forget the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill and instead use appropriations bills to fund the National Guard and increased border security.

Santorum has a reasonable point. If we actually enforced the laws currently on the books and also adequately funded border security, it's questionable whether "comprehensive reform" (translation: amnesty and guest worker programs) is necessary. There's no reason we couldn't address these issues in a couple of years, after having proven the borders are closed, which is one thing that makes the White House leaning on the House, rather than the Senate, so baffling.

Last Round On the House?

Senator Santorum's lawyers have responded to the kerfuffle.

It's in four parts:

There Is No Genuine Legal Issue As to the Santorums' Residency in Penn Hills

It talks about the Pa Code, which I cited the other day, US Code (26 USCA § 162(a)(3) and 4 USCA § 113(a)).

There Is No Genuine Factual Issue As To The Santorums' Residency in Penn Hills

And it lists everything with the Penn Hills address. Property taxes, voter reg, drivers licenses, car registrations, mail, law licenses, etc.

The False Allegations Concerning Sen. Santorum's Residency Have No Bearing On His Qualifications To Serve A A United Statse Senator

The argument is that the Vecchio's wish to disqualify Santorum from not only voting, but serving office. Apparently Congress has considered this situation before, and it came up at the Constitutional Convention.

Finally, The Vecchio's Complaint Is Procedurally Defective

Their complaint and request if acted upon "may well violate" the Senator's civil rights, which surprised me. As well as this bit. Apart from the statutory procdedure, the law does not empower county solicitors or election division personnel to render advisory opinions or promulgate prohibitor orders directed at particular electors.

The Philly Inquirer comments...

[I]nstead of ducking the issue after last week's primary, when the husband of a Penn Hills Democratic leader questioned the senator's right to vote, Santorum has helped give it new life by challenging the claims in media interviews, radio spots and, now, a legal filing.

The strategy has political analysts asking, why bring attention to a potential vulnerability?

Perhaps by linking Casey to Penn Hills Democrats, Santorum can tag his opponent as a negative campaigner while shifting the debate away from national issues that are dragging down his approval ratings, analysts have suggested.

Still, "I don't see the sense of fanning the flames," said Berwood Yost, a pollster at Franklin and Marshall College. "All it does is remind people that he lives in Virginia."

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette unloads.

First, the couple criticizing Sen. Santorum have denied a connection to the Casey campaign, an assertion confirmed by Mr. Casey. (Perhaps Sen. Santorum thinks that just being a critical Democrat makes people "operatives.") [The Vecchio's are not just "critical Democrats," they are Democrats involved in local politics. Surely the PG wouldn't argue that they would be helping to elect, or have voted for Republicans. -ed]

Second, no one has admitted to trespassing on the Santorum property or peering through windows. The KDKA report merely quoted Mr. Vecchio as saying the house was vacant, with no curtains or furniture. But you wouldn't have to be a trespasser to find that out; you could ask neighbors -- or the local mail carrier. After all, the senator's absence is not in serious dispute because he doesn't live here anymore.

DB Light writes on the meta-story, perception.

This week Rick Santorum launched his media campaign with radio ads in the Pittsburgh market portraying Bob Casey as a below-the-belt mudslinger who won’t address real issues. He’s attacking Casey’s strongest points here. Thus far Casey has tried to portray himself as a comfort candidate – not harsh like Santorum, and fuzzy enough on issues so that voters with widely disparate perspectives can feel comfortable with him. So far it’s worked, and so Santorum is trying to alter those perceptions. In doing so he has a considerable advantage. During his losing battle against Ed Rendell for the gubernatorial nomination four years ago Casey did sling a lot of mud, and was called on it by the Rendell forces. As a result Santorum is in the delicious position of being able to throw the Democrats’ own words back at them.

Will it work? It’s not bad for a first volley. And it is significant that the campaign opened in Pittsburgh. That’s Santorum’s home turf and he has been polling poorly there. Rick has no chance of denting the mindlessly partisan Philly market, but if he can peel away some moderate votes in the West and firm up his base in the center of the State, he can take this thing – at least that seems to be the calculation.

Does any of this mean this [in particular the lawyer's letter] is over? Probably not, as everyone is going to keep chiming in. No matter what way this ends, it's refreshing to see Democrats finally interested in who gets to vote where. It's a long time coming.

Somehow I expect the interest will wane prior to November 7th.

More on Immigration

Santorum comments (video) on immigration.

Senate Immigration Bill Passes

FX Street

The complicated, three-tier program was viewed as the key to the compromise. A bipartisan coalition of senators repeatedly turned back amendments that would have sank the bill by either boosting or cutting the number of immigrants who could seek legal status

The Senate approved amendments that further tightened the bill's border-security provisions, assuaging some lawmakers' concerns

But opponents argued that the bill doesn't do enough to tighten the nation's borders or enforce immigration laws

"We need a border security bill first. And we need a program that makes sure that our country's borders are secure and that they are not a threat either to our national security or economic security," said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa

Only after tightening the borders and strengthening employer-verification requirements "we can look at a temporary worker program to meet some of the requirements of specific industries in this country who are in need of employment," he said.

WashingtonTimes

Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, said the bill "puts the cart before the horse" because it grants citizenship rights to illegals, grants full-blown amnesty to employers and opens the borders to millions of new immigrants each year.

"The horse here, that I've been hearing from my constituents, is we need a border security bill first," said Mr. Santorum, who spends much of his time campaigning for re-election this fall. "And we need a program that makes sure that our country's borders are secure and that they are not a threat either to our national security or economic security.

The bill also includes approval for 350 miles of new fencing along the border, 500 miles of vehicle barriers and authorization of 3,000 new border patrol agents this year.

KBTV4.com

Arizona Republican John McCain called the U.S. a nation of immigrants and said the bill provides a "comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system." Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions said it`s "deeply flawed." Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum called it an "amnesty bill." The biggest battles lie ahead when Senate and House negotiators try to iron out differences and forge a compromise.

In related news...

"If this were the bill that came before me if I were in the United States Senate, I would vote yes, because I think it's long past time that we address this issue."
(Bobby Casey, Jr., Interview on the Flip Side with John McIntire, KDKA radio, May 25, 2006)

Hannity

The Senator will be on Sean Hannity's radio show today at 4pm.

Listen Live

Another Round on the House

The commentati weigh in.

"We've got some of the most important national issues confronting us, and we've got 'window-gate,'" said G. Terry Madonna, a political science professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster County. "This campaign is going to be brutal and take no prisoners. The stakes are too big here."

Must every scandal be "something-gate?"

"In some ways it trivializes the importance of the campaign," said Steven A. Peterson, a professor of politics and public affairs at Penn State University in Harrisburg. The war in Iraq, immigration reform and gasoline prices have lost importance to the house issue.

Terry Madonna and Steven Peterson both agree with me. . Maybe they're readers. ;)

"You can't really see your family every day and do work in Congress without moving your family to Washington," said Bob Maranto, a political science professor at Villanova University in Philadelphia. "But then it puts you in a bind, because your political opponents can point out you're not really living in the district any more."

Short aside. The libertarian in me says "if only the House and Senate wasn't in session so much." I once car-pooled with Libertarian Candidate for President Michael Bednarik who refered me to Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall (be on the first Monday in December,) unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

He said it was there because the framers were afraid they wouldn't show up! Heh!

Finally Greg Pollowitz @ NRO

A statement was made that suggested someone had actually gone to Sen. Santorum's home and peaked inside his windows to check on the condition of Santorum's stated Pennsylvania residency.

This, of course, just invites any crazy to go and look for himself. Sen. Santorum is understandably mad and the Capitol Police are now involved to provide extra security.

Santorum Responds to Vote Challenge

According to press reports in Pittsburgh-area newspapers, Bobby Casey’s Crew is at it again baselessly challenging Rick and Karen Santorum’s most basic civil right of exercising their right to vote.

According to reports in the Penn Hills Progress and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Ed and Erin Vecchio, close allies of Bobby Casey Jr., have filed a complaint with the Allegheny County Law Department in an attempt to prohibit Rick and Karen from voting in Penn Hills.

“This act on the part of the Casey campaign to employ their surrogates to try to strip Rick and Karen Santorum of their basic right to vote is egregious. First, Bobby Casey Jr. condones snooping around the Santorum’s home, and now he is jeopardizing the Santorum’s civil rights,” said Vince Galko, campaign manager for Santorum 2006. “But what is most remarkable about these shenanigans is they are just that – shenanigans. Anyone who reviewed federal and state law would know that individuals in government service, in this case the U.S. Senate, do not lose their home state residency while they are performing their duties outside of their home state. Perhaps Casey’s Crew should review these portions of the election code so they can fully understand the law. Or perhaps they already knew the law, but are choosing to ignore it in an effort to deceive the public and further their baseless claims against the Santorums. We can only hope that the County won’t bow to pressure from the Casey campaign, but will follow the rule of law.”

Senator Santorum also made the following comment about these actions, “On Election Night, I was hopeful that Bob Casey would accept my challenge to focus this race on public policy issues, but he said no, calling campaigns in Pennsylvania a ‘contact sport.’ He continues to take the low road of hiding behind his campaign surrogates and avoiding the issues, while they do his dirty work. I ask Casey to stop his negative tactics and join me in speaking out on Senate business and meeting for a series of ten debates.”

Another Tax Cut

Sweet.

Treasury Secretary John Snow states, "Today is a good day for American taxpayers; it marks the beginning of the end of an outdated, antiquated tax that has survived a century beyond its original purpose, and by now should have been ancient history.

"The Federal Appeals courts have spoken across the board. It's time to `disconnect' this tax and put it on the permanent `do not call' list.

"In addition to ending the litigation, I would like to call on Congress to terminate the remainder of this antique tax by repealing the excise tax on local service as well."

It took a number of lawsuits, and legislation that Senators Santorum and Allen have been pushing to finally kill it.

(tip to Government Bytes)

Trust But Verify

National Ledger

Americans cannot afford to ignore Iran, particularly given Iran’s drive to become a nuclear power. Simultaneously, Americans need to remember many Iranians do not share such sentiments. There is hope that regime change can be achieved peacefully.

Senator Santorum has been arguing that the United States needs to be more aggressive in containing Iran. He is sponsoring S. 333, the Iran Freedom and Support Act, which seeks to hold “Iran accountable for its threatening behavior.” Santorum’s legislation seeks to impose sanctions against any country or person helping Iran to build Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). More aid would flow to groups inside Iran opposed to the regime. Iran’s current leadership is intent upon building and to those organizations backing democracy. Santorum’s bill has sixty co-sponsors. “I think we have to show strength and resolve to remove this government through peaceful means and through support of the Iranian people both in Iran and outside,” explains Santorum.

Kenneth Timmerman, Executive Director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran and author of COUNTDOWN TO CRISIS: THE COMING NUCLEAR SHOWDOWN WITH IRAN, maintains that the clock is ticking. Now is the time for the United States to come to the aid of the pro-democracy movement. Were Iran to brandish nuclear weapons the United States would likely confront two options, military action or appeasement, neither an attractive alternative.

Economic News

Up up up!

The U.S. economy shot forward at an upwardly revised 5.3 percent annual rate in the first quarter, the fastest growth in 2-1/2 years, as companies built up inventories and exports strengthened, a Commerce Department report on Thursday showed.

First-quarter growth in gross domestic product was more than triple the 1.7 percent annual rate recorded in last year's fourth quarter, though still slightly below Wall Street economists' forecasts for a 5.7 percent pace.

Prices remained in check, with the core personal consumption expenditures price index that the Federal Reserve favors rising at a 2 percent rate compared with 2.4 percent in the fourth quarter.

THE BATTLE IN PA

Rick Santorum must defeat Democrat Bob Casey in the November election to hold his seat in the U.S. Senate and keep the Republicans in control of that body. Casey won his victory with 85 percent of the Democratic vote. Liberals Chuck Pennacchio (9 percent) and Alan Sandals (6 percent) got some votes, but it's clear that Democrats think the best way to beat Santourm is to unite behind a socially conservative Democrat.

Santorum has challenged Casey to 10 debates, four on national TV and six in the state. Casey will have to accept some of those debates if only to show he is not afraid of Santorum. Make no mistake, this is the most important race. If Democrats have any hope of winning the six Senate seats they need to take control of the U.S. Senate during the last two years of the Bush administration, it begins right here in Pennsylvania.

The Democrats also must win 15 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives to take it back after 12 years of Republican control, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has its eyes set on Pennsylvania for many of those 15 seats. Your participation in the campaigns and election will chart the course for the entire country!

Senate Immigration Bill

Senator Santorum's statement on the Senate Immigration Bill (via email)

The U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote today on a comprehensive immigration-reform bill. With thousands of illegal immigrants rushing across our borders every day, straining every sector of our society, congressional attention to this issue is appropriate and overdue.

I come to this debate honestly seeking a legitimate solution to this divisive and contentious issue. However, if one were to imagine the worst possible way to reform our immigration system, it would probably look a lot like the immigration bill the U.S. Senate is currently consideringa broad amnesty program for most illegal immigrants, increased financial burdens on honest tax-paying American citizens, and incentives for illegal immigrants to raid the Social Security system and lie about their work history. While the Senate has not yet passed a final bill, there are three primary reasons why I cannot support S. 2611 as it is written.

First, this bill largely rewards those who have broken the law and threatens the health of our nation's social safety netSocial Securityby adding millions of new beneficiaries to an already unsustainable program. Millions of illegal immig rants who forged identification documents and used stolen or fraudulent Social Security numbers when seeking employment will be given the opportunity to stay in America, receive Social Security benefits, and continue their lives.

Instead of deterring illegal behavior, S. 2611 rewards illegal immigrants by putting our current elderly beneficiaries, who paid into the Social Security system for decades in order to collect the benefits they receive today, further at risk in an already stretched system. Additionally, Robert Rector from the Heritage Foundation conservatively estimates that this bill could increase welfare costs by some $11.4 billion per year.

Second, the low hurdles to citizenship this bill erectsmaking illegal immigrants stand at the back of the immigration line while remaining in our country (and pushing others outside of the country further back in line); forcing them to pay only three years of back income taxes after the IRS, rather than they themselves, figures out how much they owe; collecting a nominal fee of $2,000 per immigrantmock and demean the sacrifices of those who waited years to immigrate through our established legal channels. Worse, like the immigration law passed in 1986, it creates a disincentive to legally apply for citizenship.

Those who broke the law when coming into America, broke the law when getting a job, and broke the law by failing to pay the same taxes as American workers, continue to break the law by residing here illegally. This bill is dangerous precedent and sends a chilling message about our national integrity: < st1:place w:st="on">America has lost the will to enforce her laws, and her sovereignty is for salecurrently, for around $2,000.

Third, S. 2611 will allow "guest-workers" to apply for eventual citizenship, effectively nullifying the "guest" nature of the proposal. I could support a temporary worker program if there were reasonable assurances that those we admitted really were here only temporarily. This bill provides no such assurances.

I further cannot support an amnesty proposal now because amnesty has failed in the past. In 1986, Congress attempted to address this same issue, though on a much smaller scale. Estimates of the size of the illegal-immigrant population in the U.S. in 1986 placed the total number close to 1 million; today we are dealing with around 12 million. If providing amnesty to one million illegal immigrants yielded 12 million over the course of 20 years, with how many additional millions will we be burdened in 2026 by offering amnesty now?

This bill rewards illegal behavior, threatens our social-welfare system, devalues the legal-immigration process, turns illegal immigrants into permanent residents, and fails the test of history. The Senate should reject S. 2611.

Rasmussen Poll Soon

I'm not a premium member ($349 is a bit steep), but it looks like a new poll will be out soon. (Down the left side)

Stem Cells

Washington Times

Last summer the President's Council on Bioethics reviewed a variety of these new approaches and found a great deal of promise. So intriguing is this new research, that two senators historically on opposite sides of the embryonic stem cell debate have come together and introduced legislation to provide more federal funding. Pennsylvania Sens. Rick Santorum (who opposes embryonic stem cell research) and Arlen Specter (a vocal supporter of it) recently introduced legislation to promote funding for this alternative stem cell research. Mr. Santorum says the new bill "reflects a commitment to curing disease, promoting scientific progress, and respect(s) life."

Mr. Bush deserves a great deal of credit for crafting a policy that balances concerns for scientific advancement and curing disease with the ethical concerns raised in the embryonic stem cell debate -- as do the lawmakers promoting this new research. Mr. Bush's decision made in the political arena and the response by the scientific community have led to initiatives like the Santorum-Specter legislation. While we rarely rely on politics or science to unlock ethical dilemmas, in this case they may be the key.

Sitting Out

The debate within the Republican party over sitting out in November has gotten a lot of attention in the blogosphere lately.

Here's John Hawkins' conclusion at HumanEventsOnline.

Here’s my advice: set your emotions aside and think long and hard about what a Democratically controlled Congress would really mean. Is the satisfaction of, “teaching the Republicans a lesson,” worth the price? Think back to the Clinton years: conservatives certainly stuck it to Old “Read My Lips,” but the price turned out to be eight years of, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” In my book, that wasn’t such a great trade-off and keep in mind, when you’re talking about congressmen and senators, it could be worse. Incumbent politicians are tougher to get rid of than a cockroach infestation and 40 years from now, do you really want to be sitting around, remembering how you stayed home and helped the next Robert Byrd get into office? Folks, be mad at the GOP if you don’t think they’re doing a good job. Call your senator, call your congressman and give ’em hell if they deserve it. But, when November rolls around, make sure to vote because there’s more on the line than you might think.

Read It All